CCMIN101706 - Laserfiche WebLink

and have the other items come back to Council for discussion at the Tentative Map stage. Staff recommended that Council not address the park issue at this time, but rather focus on the development itself knowing that there does need to be a separate process for the treatment of the open space in the future. The land will be dedicated to the City; the City will own it and the City will not do anything on that property until there is a forum for discussion of uses and possible structures. Councilmember McGovern clarified she is not asking for picnic tables everywhere, perhaps in just specific areas. With regard to the 35 foot easement for the property owners on Jorgensen, she asked and confirmed with staff that if the one owner does not want the land and the other three are contiguous, the Council could add a condition that as long as those three want the land, it would be given to them. Motion: It was m/s by BrozoskylThorne to approve the staff recommendation as follows and with the additional condition that open space; tree sizes and the quantity of the trees will be handled at the Tentative Map stage; that house colors be consistent with the existing environment in the Foothill area; 1. That the proposed project will not have a significant environmental impact and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate and adopt Resolution No. 06- 067 approving the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2. That the proposed amendment to the Pleasanton General Plan conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan and adopt Resolution No. 06-068 approving Case PGPA-11 changing the land use designation of the 30-acre Austin property, 3. That the proposed PUD rezoning of the subject property from the "A" District to the PUD-LDR District on 8 acres and to the PUD-AG District on the remaining 22 acres as shown on Exhibit E, dated October 17, 2006, and the PUD development plan to subdivide the subject property into 8 custom home sites and to designate the remaining 22 acres as permanent open space shown on Exhibit A, dated "Received October 17, 2006", conforms to the purposes of the PUD Ordinance; and, 4. Make the PUD Development Plan Findings 1 through 6 as stated in the Planning Commission staff report and introduce Ordinance No. 1942 approving Case PUD- 58 subject to Exhibit B, Draft Conditions of Approval. Council member Sullivan thanked the property owners for being good stewards of that land. He felt the clustering of the houses will be better for the community and will fit the character of the area. He noted the need for further discussion regarding the open space. Councilmember McGovern thanked the Austin family and asked if they would consider donating pictures of their family's heritage on that property as it would add to the Adobe exhibit, as well as the museum collection of wonderful old pictures of the community. She also thanked the Austin family for their donation of land to the City. In response for clarification that the new open space area will be brought back and discussed as a separate plan, staff advised that further discussion will be held at the Tentative Map stage. C~y Council Minutes 8 October 17. 2006